|
|||||
GetEqual’s Fabulous ENDA Timeline has a MAJOR MISLEADING FLAW. ENDA, in truth, is a “SEPARATE WATER FOUNTAIN” for the Gays.   GetEqual has done an amazing timeline on ENDA. http://getequal.org/2010/07/enda-timeline-broken-promises/ But it has ONE MAJOR MISLEADING Flaw. After correctly listing that in 1974, NY Congress people introduced a bill to directly Amend the 1964 Civil Rights Act to add “sex, sexual orientation and marital status,” the timeline then makes a misleading connection to that strategy. Here’s the too-clever transition moment in the timeline: “1994 — The modern version of the Civil Rights Amendment, now called the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), is introduced with gay-only protection without public accommodations or housing provisions.” This is misleading because it suggests that ENDA IS an Amendment to the Civil Rights Act (CRA). When in fact, ENDA is a separate law, apart from the CRA. A separate and unequal law JUST FOR employment non-discrimination covering “sex. orient. and gender identity” (SO+GI), whereas “race, color, sex, national origin, and religion” are protected from employment discrimination UNDER (IN) the Civil Rights Act (Title VII). ENDA is a separate water fountain – for the gays! And no one is saying it! This makes ENDA a scam – because I for one didn’t realize this until I studied the bill. Here is the text of ENDA. Interestingly, ENDA looks, smells, and sounds similar to the CRA (and it references the CRA many times for enforcement etc.), but doesn’t put us in the CRA, because back in 1994 (and supposedly today) – the NAACP, NOW, etc. (the groups currently protected by the CRA) told the gays to STAY AWAY – DO NOT TOUCH – the CRA. And we obeyed, supposedly for “allied” support, which hasn’t helped pass the bill in 16 years. Yet still, we obey. It was “their law” and “civil rights” belonged to the black civil rights movement — and those groups asserted then, and the NAACP still says, that they are afraid of making any changes to the CRA that might open the law up to Republican attempts to water down THEIR protections. So we did our own – for gays only – and we are STILL not yet asking for equal treatment and inclusion in the CRA. How long will we allow the “fears” of protected groups to justify our exclusion? And what does it say about US that we are STILL NOT even ASKING for equal inclusion in the CRA? No one is being honest about this. If it passes, as is, Pres. Obama will go down in history as a mixed-race President who created a separate water fountain for gay people in employment discrimination. The law that protected HIS JOBS since he was a child (born in 1961, CRA passed in ‘64) WILL NOT INCLUDE US. Those laws – called the CIVIL RIGHTS Laws – do more than end discrimination, they are a statement of U.S. policy AGAINST discrimination which says everyone protected under them are equal – race, color, sex, nat. orig., religion – all traits and covered groups – are equal to one another. By putting us apart – we are saying the opposite. Even after/if ENDA passes, we will still have to fight to GET IN THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT – in an equal way. We will still not have “Civil Rights” for us. I REALLY WISH our community would START TELLING THE TRUTH ABOUT ENDA. If we know and tell the truth – and decide to accept this 2nd class citizenship-strategy, then FINE. But let that be a decision made in full disclosure. The wording “the modern version of the Civil Rights amendment” – is misleading in an highly subtle way. This is not an amendment to the CRA, in any way, and not the equivalent of the 1974 bill filed by Ed Koch and Bella Azbug which, as I understand them, DID PUT US IN THE CRA – because at the time, we felt we were EQUAL to “race, color”. Now we act as if we are not, because those groups told us to stay away, and we still bow to that social pressure which is nothing but homophobia misrepresented as fear. WE CAN FIX ENDA – and put “SO+GI” in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. But this will take PRINCIPLE and SELF-RESPECT, which our current movement does not have. Here is that language (Drafted by Karen Doering): Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000e, is amended to add “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” as prohibited basis’ for discrimination in employment. Sections 2000e-2(a)-(d), §2000e-2(h), §2000e-2(j), §2000e-2(l), §2000e-2(m), §2000e-3(b), 2000e(g)(2)(A), §2000e-16(a), and §2000e-16(c), are amended every time the phrase “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin” appears to include after the word “sex” the following words:- “sexual orientation, gender identity,”. THIS IS WHAT EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW LOOKS LIKE. (And this is what The American Equality Bill calls for: http://bit.ly/AEBillonFB). History will reveal the truth of this, and all involved will have brought dishonor upon our community and themselves. Are we that desperate? Do we think that little of ourselves? Sorry GetEqual friends. I know you did not create ENDA or this 2nd class strategy. I know you’re just trying to help move the existing agenda and hold folks accountable, and I wholeheartedly applaud that work. But this timeline perpetuates the fraud. Please fix the timeline, or you and your supporters (including me) become a knowing party to the conspiracy. You have to wonder: WHERE IS THE LGBT PRESS ON THIS? WHY ARE YOU NOT QUESTIONING THE DRAFTERS OF ENDA ABOUT THIS? THE WHOLE POINT of our cause is that we are telling THE TRUTH. We are equal beings. Homophobia does kill. And we are entitled as a matter of human rights law and philosophy to be included fully in America’s non-discrimination laws, which we call The Civil Rights Act of 1964. To get there, we have to start telling the truth about ENDA. [BTW: ENDA IS NOT REALLY GAYS-Only EITHER. And that's important, but not easy to capture in a soundbite. ENDA is not really a gays-only law because it covers "Sexual Orientation" which could be straight, bi, or gay, and "Gender Identity" which covers the full range. Obviously straight people and gender conforming people don't suffer discrimination like we do, and are not really the point, any more than "race and color" were intended to protect white people.] 13 comments to GetEqual’s Fabulous ENDA Timeline has a MAJOR MISLEADING FLAW. ENDA, in truth, is a “SEPARATE WATER FOUNTAIN” for the Gays. |
 
 | ||||
Todd: are you really advocating trashing ENDA now, after years of hard work and when we are about a dozen votes shy of passing it, and could pass it this year if we only got those few remaining votes? That’s not only changing horses mid-stream, but shooting the horse we’re leaving. Or simply shooting ourselves in the foot.
With all due respect, how much experience do you have lobbying for and passing bills in the United States Congress?
Of course ENDA would have been better had it been written to include anti-discrimination in it’s entirety. I don’t think it’s productive to mad at ENDA for what it isn’t, but rather to positive about what it is and the progress it has made. It seems like we have chosen the path of slowly wearing our opponents in society and government down by trying to make incremental progress and ask for one right at a time while trying to convince everyone to “tolerate” us and that we’re “ok”. While the result is that roughly four decades after the civil rights act we are still begging for acceptance and equality, these other bills and laws have paved the way for us. We should absolutely push for full equality under the AEB, but we don’t have sponsor yet, and ENDA and the repeal of DOMA are in Congress now. We need to get those two passed so we can at least keep our jobs and get married while we continue to work for full equality. I don’t think it makes any sense to try and shoot down those bills while we try to get AEB sponsored and even into Congress.
Yea. This isn’t news. Now we’re arguing that we can’t have separate laws to address issues as they come up in our society? I don’t see any argument here other than they are separate laws.
I’m all for AEB. But I’m not going to trash ENDA when we are so close.
It’s not a flaw J Todd. It’s your opinion. I can’t quite picture people sitting around in the future lamenting that we passed ENDA separately.
I’m only advocating telling the truth about ENDA. I was in shock when I realized how this was being approached. So I imagine others were/are unaware too. For me, it’s all about truth.
I personally find this approach unacceptable as a matter of principle. After laws pass like this, they will take decades to revisit. What will we say to our children when they realize how we went about this?
Or perhaps, it will pass and give us all the more reason to fight for the AEB. But what do we say then: yes we wanted ENDA, but what we really wanted was EQUAL employment protection under Title VII of the CRA? That’s odd to say the least, but if that’s the game plan – fine. As long as we know what we’re doing, and it’s not a secret.
As for legislative experience, I have plenty, but not federal. But aside from Hate Crimes, our experts have not passed ENDA in 16 years, or anything else in almost 40, while they presided over DOMA and DADT. Not really a record to tout “superior knowledge” on.
Did it ever occur to anyone that perhaps ENDA hasn’t passed because it was flawed and shouldn’t pass? Did it occur to anyone that if we ask now for full equality – instead of taking the crumb at hand – that we might have a real movement on our hands?
Obama is going to give us ENDA – and nothing else (except maybe UAFA in CIR hopefully). If he wins a 2nd term, we might be in good shape. If not, we’re stuck with a separate water fountain for the foreseeable future.
I realize it’s a crap choice (someone privately said it was a Sophie’s choice). But whatever we do – let’s at least do it with our eyes open. We’ve all lived with enough dirty little secrets. It’s time for some pride.
Jude, the fact that this is a separate law for SO+GI – that puts us apart from the rest of the protected groups – is not an opinion, and it was news to me. “Flaw” may be an opinion, but there are stronger words that could be used to describe it.
I think everyone here is arguing to “take ENDA” and be grateful. Fine, if that’s the call, that’s the call. But that doesn’t mean we have to do it blindly.
And yes – it will be a bitter-sweet pill to swallow. I will not be celebrating this. Maybe in 1994 we had no choice. But today we do.
We have a mixed-race President. He’s the one who will have to sign this. History will recognize the significance of this difference.
I just wanted to make sure WE knew what we were doing. This is not about the AEB. This is about doing ENDA with self-respect.
It’s not too late. Unless they pass this in the lame duck (which is entirely possible), they’ll have to refile in the next Congress and there is plenty of time to do it right.
We’ve waited 16 years, what’s one more. If Obama decides to fix ENDA, he can pass it. He’s the one who will have to decide if he feels we are EQUAL and entitled to EQUAL employment non-discrimination protections, equal to his.
We also have to decide WHEN it is that our movement takes a PRINCIPLED STAND. This means demanding EQUAL rights, not separate and unequal.
I’m sorry this is upsetting to people. I too worked to push ENDA. I made a big push with Jillian Weiss earlier this year. I tried to move the UnitedENDA coalition to be more aggressive, we held a national conference call etc. I was full out on it, when our groups should have been pushing but weren’t. It was only later that I studied the bill and found out what I’m raising here. As a human rights lawyer, I felt I had to speak up.
If they were doing a separate law for “race” there would be outrage. Or if each of the covered groups “race, color, sex, national origin, religion” – had parallel – but their own – laws, that would be different too. But this is flat out homophobia – demanding that we NOT be included in the group coverage. And we have allowed this to be.
I hope we don’t shoot the messenger, but I’ll take the hit if need be. It was and is too important to overlook in my opinion.
One more thing. We don’t have any idea whether we could pass ENDA the right way (by putting us IN the CRA’s employment provisions). We haven’t even tried. And we haven’t even asked. That’s the saddest part. We’re not even ASKING for equal rights. That’s the problem at the root of our movement. Who do we have to blame for that? Which Republican? Which church? None. Ourselves. That’s who.
Besides the fact that they are separate pieces of legislation, what is the flaw with the actual ENDA bill as written versus the AEB (which is also separate legislation, since we don’t have time machines….yet).
Just asking Todd. I know your heart is in the right place. All of us have hearts in the right place.
Saying it is homophobia because it is separate doesn’t make sense to me. Help me understand. Because I really do want to.
Jude
I totally support AEB. I just want action. Real progress. No more “support” and “commited to”.
Congress is like (sorry for the straight girl analogy)the guy who keeps promising to get married but never does. I would be fired if I did my job the way that Congress does theirs.
I keep saying over and over that we need a revision in our entire movement. We are too divisive. There are too many separate groups advocating for separate LGBT causes so instead of one voice asking for equal rights the government hears several smaller voices asking for several different bills to pass. The African Americans, the womens rights movements, they did not ask for one thing at a time, so they were far more united and a far stronger force to be reckoned with. We have way too many groups, it’s ridiculous. How is anyone supposed to know who to support? I personally get a near constant stream of emails asking for donations to different organizations that should all be under the same umbrella. The problem is no one wants to give up leadership, and everyone thinks they can reinvent the wheel and do it better. We need to follow strategies that have been proven to work. What did people do in the 1960’s? Why were they effective? As far as I’m concerned the ship has sailed on ENDA. It’s already in Congress, it’s already gonna pass. We can view that as something that helped pave the way. Remember, women were allowed to vote in the 1920’s, but didn’t have equal pay til much later and had to fight until the last minute to get included into the civil rights act. Women were told to back off trying to get gender added and that “it’s the negros turn”. So now we have had a lot of progress in our movement lately. LGBT issues have been in the news frequently for most of the year. Even the GOP is starting to show incremental support for equal rights, and as much as it may go against the grain to try and win them over and include them, that’s exactly what we should be doing. Ted Olson said it best when he said this is a non partisan issue, it is a civil rights issue. We have more support now than we have ever had. We need to find someone who can really champion this, who has influence and can gain financial backing. I don’t know who, it would be cool if Ken Mehlman took this up and got one of his GOP friends in Congress or the Senate to sponsor it. If a member of the GOP brought this bill to the table it would almost assure victory. They could be the party that finally brought equality and the dems couldn’t even protest. It would be good for the RNC so they might get on board, and, too bad for the dems for being our “frienemies” as my friend Wendy calls them. This just needs to be done. Enough with separate bills, and the truth is, the momentum that this movement has now is not going to last forever. If we don’t take advantage of it now the opportunity will pass and we’ll have to readdress it again in a few years when we can pretend that it’s a new idea. Has anyone talked to Olympia Snowe from Maine about sponsoring this?
Jennifer, we’ve segued from ENDA to The AEB, which is fine.
What you say is exactly the movement-strategy angle for the AEB – to have something we can all get behind because it covers everything (except marriage). The principle-strategy is that it demands equal under the laws. And the message-strategy is “Equal Civil Rights”. It’s quite simple really, and I could not agree with you more. We should approach the Republicans on this, and I have done some preliminary outreach to GoProud, and some individual Congress people, but MUCH more needs to be done.
No one has approached Snowe yet, that I’m aware of. Please feel free to take the lead on that outreach. We’re all grassroots and we need everyone working their contacts.
If you take that on, please indicate you have on the AEB Sponsorship Whip Count here at AOP.
My understanding that congressional representatives will only communicate with their own constituents. Someone from Maine needs to contact her. Do we have anyone that is from that state? Why doesn’t the AEB include marriage? If it bars discrimination on all fronts wouldn’t that be one of them? I read the bill and I guess I assumed they wouldn’t be able to discriminate for marriage licenses either. The most critical thing for me is to be able to marry my partner federally because she is a foreign national and UAFA doesn’t look like it’s going to pass. I have actually been more than irritated at the push for ENDA and DADT at the exclusion of the DOMA repeal. We can all replace our jobs but we simply can’t replace our spouses, or even protect them, because of DOMA.
I hear you about priorities! Re: marriage, according to Constitutional scholars and marriage equality advocates, we can not pass a federal law forcing the states to end discrimination. This is the realm of the Supreme Court – evidently. I myself am not completely convinced, but I hit dead end after dead end trying to get one formulated, or even support for that idea. None of our current bills attempt to fix marriage, and DOMA repeal just affects the states where you can marry. The original “omnibus” reverses DOMA – and makes the fed gov’t recognize state marriages, domestic partnerships, and civil unions, but doesn’t affect states/places where they have none of those. DOMA was just overturned in MA, so that’s hopeful, but headed up on appeal. Of course, we won in Prop. 8 which might fix this issue everywhere – in its most expansive possibility (very unlikely they say, but you never know). So marriage is NOT part of the AEB. UAFA is now in CIR, so I’d remain hopeful about that for first 1/2 of next year. I work on that a lot.
Well I would be more than willing to travel to Boston or Iowa to get a marriage license if DOMA was repealed. In fact, the constitution requires each state to recognize marriages from other states, so if DOMA were overturned then those marriages would be portable. That’s why in states where the age to marry differs than in others, if someone travels to a state with a younger age requirement and gets married and then returns to their home state it is recognized even if the age of consent is older. For example, the legal age to marry in Nevada with a parents signature is 16, but in Nebraska no one under age 17 can get married at all, and if they are under age 19 they need parental consent. So a person age 16 could go to Nevada and get married and Nebraska would recognize the marriage even though the person as not qualified by statute to marry in Nebraska. I think it would be the same deal if the issue was based on gender and there was federal recognition of the marriages in the states that have them.